People v. Helenese

• Decision Date: 27 July 2010
• Citation: 907 N.Y.S.2d 223,75 A.D.3d 653
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Roger HELENESE, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

907 N.Y.S.2d 223
75 A.D.3d 653

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Roger HELENESE, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

July 27, 2010.

907 N.Y.S.2d 224

Michael A. Drobenare, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Laura T. Ross of counsel), for respondent.

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., REINALDO E. RIVERA, FRED T. SANTUCCI, and HOWARD MILLER, JJ.

75 A.D.3d 653

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lasak, J.), rendered February 27, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts) and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree pursuant to Penal Law § 265.02(4) is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Adams, 281 A.D.2d 486, 721 N.Y.S.2d 791). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946; People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant possessed an operable weapon ( see People v. Longshore, 86 N.Y.2d 851, 852, 633 N.Y.S.2d 475, 657 N.E.2d 496; People v. Benjamin, 24 A.D.3d 565, 805 N.Y.S.2d 291; People v. Rodriguez, 238 A.D.2d 447, 657 N.Y.S.2d 344; People v. Bailey, 19 A.D.3d 431, 432, 796 N.Y.S.2d 401; see also People v. Hilaire, 270 A.D.2d 359, 359-360, 705 N.Y.S.2d 382). Moreover,

907 N.Y.S.2d 225

in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent

75 A.D.3d 654

review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053, cert. denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to the criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree count was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 644-645, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859...